MYT - I can't believe it!!

[Viscount Sussex]

MYT are reducing the pilot force using LIFO (last in first out).
In my opinion that's fair. However because of the sex discrimination act (1975) it doesn't totally apply to our female pilots, i.e. a similar percentage (within 5%) of both male and female pilots has to be laid-off, regardless of how many are employed of each sex.
Subsequently, demotions are also carried out using LIFO and not date of promotion. So a pilot that worked for the company previously in another department before becoming a pilot, but managed to keep the original date of joining, or a pilot which for whatever reason did not obtain his command until very late, can now keep his command against a far more senior captain. Is that fair?
Have you experienced this kind of events in your company?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Joyce Tick]

But what happens if you are due for redundancy under LIFO because you were a man when you joined, but have since undergone sex-change surgery and are legally registered as a woman...

Like me!

[763 jock]

Hi VS. I think you should ask BALPA about this one. They are involved in the negotiations and I believe it's the way that they want it done......

[Viscount Sussex]

763 jock

I know. I think that LIFO is a good idea, however how can it be fair for a very junior captain to keep his command, when other far more experienced and in some cases better commanders, even trainers potentially be demoted.
It's crazy in my eyes, but on the other hand I might be bias, because I might be directly affected.
Thank God I don't fall into the "better commanders/trainers category".
I wonder if I am being unreasonable.
:hmm:

[DEOne]

Yeah, these things are always hard to deal with. I guess no matter how they do it, someone's got to go. Too bad. Thinking of you guys.

Been there done that. Hated it!

[763 jock]

Likewise VS. When I joined at the bottom of the F/O's list, I always felt "vulnerable" should there ever be redunancies. Similarly when I went on the bottom of the Captains list, I felt that I would be the first guy put in the RHS if "demotions" were ever required. I bet a few BALPA subs will be cancelled in the near future! Apparently, with retirements/volunteers/change of working patterns etc the number has gone from 118 to about 77....Good luck to you.

[skibeagle]

Are you saying that BALPA want to go against the strict LIFO reverse seniority list ? So a female pilot who has been there for a shorter period than a male pilot may retain her job while a male pilot, with longer in the firm, gets hoofed out ??? ...... and BALPA want this ????

Tell me it aint so....please....

[Big Tudor]

skibeagle,

The issue is not whether BALPA want it or not, it is directly related to Employment Law. I believe BALPA sought expert legal advice on the matter before the final solution was arrived at.

To Viscount Sussex and 763 jock I'm potentially at risk of redundancy as well (what a great statement). Wish you both all the best if the worst does happen. The job market isn't to bad at the minute so hopefully I shouldn't be state dependent! :uhoh:

[Viscount Sussex]

Big Tudor

As you say, BALPA sought legal advice regarding the issue of sexual discrimination; however it would be discrimination against the male pilot if a lower service female was kept over the longer serving male pilot. I believe it's to do with actual compensation. It would be cheaper to compensate the male pilot than the female pilot so I was told by BALPA.
LIFO is great and fair for redundancies and it would be also fare if it meant LIFO based on date of promotion, but not on date of joining as it has been agreed between BALPA and the company.
I personally will be stopping my subscription from the union.
:mad:

[MercenaryAli]

How about this for a novel idea|?

From the total list of pilots decide how many Captains and First Officers the airlines needs to retain.

Have a look at their training records and sim rides in respect of ability and experience.

Keep the best, irrespective of length of service, and let the weakest ones go!

Ergo, the airline is slimmer, more cost effective and retains the best technical crews available.

Now THAT IS FAIR !! and gives the airline a great "once in a lifetime" to get rid of the borerlines fliers that only JUST manage to pass a check ride/sim ride......and anyone who has been/is a sim instructor will know there are plenty of them in the business!!

[RoyHudd]

Hmmm. No-one as good as you, eh Ali?

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

The truth is that, if we are all really honest, the only good redundancy scheme is the one that leaves us in the job and kicks the other guy out first! Therein lies the problem - it is almost impossible to be just or fair in a manner that will seem 'right and good' to everyone. If you lose your job then you see it as a bad deal - and who can blame you?

LIFO is the only fair way to do it. Most pilots are incredibly selfish, sadly, and many think they are way better at their job than anyone else. Once you are into the realms of Mercenary Ali's thinking then you are faced with the difficulty of working out who is the 'better' pilot. There are almost countless permutations of ideas as to how you assess that - all designed to see that you stay in the company and the other guy goes! The other factor in favour of LIFO is that it is much easier for those removed to get jobs as there is no slur on their character or abilities. As we have seen from the comments so far, even the LIFO method is fraught with problems. The alternative is far worse - the company decides who stays and who goes. Old scores are settled, 'hunches' and 'gut-feelings' are acted on, 'big' personalities are kept on, quiet guys kicked out, anyone who dared to question anything at any point in the past is removed and so it goes on.

LIFO may be imperfect but if you leave it to the management to sort out then you will see what serious injustice is really all about.

[MercenaryAli]

This has nothing to do with me! It does not matter how good or mediocre I am this is a reality check!

Are you really trying to tell me that there is no way of marking and/or judging who score highest at their sim rides and in their line checks or in their LOFT excercises?

I know we live in a "painless society" where every student has to have a degree however useless it may be, where nobody is allowed fo "fail" so everyone has GCSE's even if they are at Grade E, F and G which actually mean they FAILED!!

Now come on there are ways of the IRE/TRE/Check Airmen/sim instructors making reasoned judgements as to who is TOP and who is Median and who is only just a PASS !!

Anyway it was just and idea to kick around, it does not affect me personally cos I am staying where I am!! Ha Ha Ha....:ok:

[Viscount Sussex]

:confused:
Norman Stanley Fletcher

I agree with you that whatever system or scheme you chose you will have unhappy people.
Also I agree that LIFO (using date of joining) is the fairest way of doing it when it comes to redundancies. Also in my opinion LIFO (using date of promotion) should be applied when demotions are being considered. In the case of MYT potentially some new captains (including those that have previously failed their command assessments) could remain as captains, were most of the trainers could be demoted, because of date of joining. Obviously it doesn’t go that far (yet) because of numbers.
Surely that cannot be a good or a fair way. And I am not trainer by a long way.
On the other hand if LIFO is being used, LIFO should mean LIFO, regardless of sex, race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
LIFO should also be used to demote trainers, but now we have politics of fleets (Boeing/Airbus). Who do you keep? The most senior Training Captain on the Boeing fleet or the newly promoted Training Captain on the Airbus fleet, since you are getting rid of the Boeing aircraft. Who do you demote? The senior Training Captain (male pilot) or the junior Training Captain (female pilot), since now you are contemplating the issue of sex discrimination.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[fiftyfour]

Or you could do it the way that MIke Street did it for BA when Dan Air were taken over. You ignore pilot's contracts for LIFO and decide to keep those pilots that you need who are flying the aircraft you are keeping on the day of the take-over.

And then you create a whirlwind of problems which take years and years to sort out - in the courts and elsewhere.

[wheelbarrow]

VS,

Im sorry to hear of your situation, I know exactly how you feel as I went through the same process with Virgin Atlantic following 9/11.

Not that it is of any use to you, BALPA managed to screw that up as well, LIFo did not really mean LIFO the demotion process was a complete :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:-up.

The only fair way to demote is LIFO to the LHS, the individuals are then put into a protected group & get their commands back in order as & when they re-appear.

I hope it all works out for MYT, why is it that we always suffer for teh incompetance of individuals who then walk away with a nice tasty pay-off?

[Young Paul]

You could encourage those pilots who are working past their Normal Retirement Date/Pensionable Retirement Date to retire. They are often on high increments, and they really ought to have better things to do with their time!

You could get rid of the most senior pilots by redundancy, giving them preferable terms, on the grounds that they are on the highest increments.

But most likely, you could simply do what the contract agreed by the union says you will do, and the union will always go for LIFO because the people doing the negotiations will generally be senior and have a vested interest.

Don't worry lads and lasses, my tongue is in my cheek - in broad terms, at least.

[Shaman]

BALPA knockers in overdrive again I see!

What has happened here is that the pilots' representatives - elected by those pilots who are BALPA members - have taken the view that wrt redundancy, LIFO should apply (as would be considered sensible by just about every single airline pilot on the face of this planet btw).

When it comes to demotion, should it be based on doj as a pilot, doj as an employee, date of promotion, position on the seniority list, 'usefulness' - ie, should a trainer be exempt - being on the right type, etc etc. The list is endless and I suspect that every pilot will have their own view which will be different to everyone else's. Who would want to be a rep in this decision making time? Not me thanks.....

[A4]

I think the general feeling is that the decisions have been taken by the CC WITHOUT consulting the membership. Throughout the whole "consultation" process within MYT, there has been VERY little feedback to the troops and the final options have certainly put a lot of noses out of joint.

What is the point in having two seniority lists (Capt and FO) when you just amalgamate them into one based on date of joining to decide who goes and who stays. OK, it's LIFO but it takes no account whatsoever of an individuals career progression within the company. There are now instances of people who have been in the company for a considerable period who have not been promoted to the LHS (for whatever reason.....) for several years but will now retain their Commands whilst, arguably, more dynamic individuals (quicker Commands) are demoted or worse made redundant.

So you have a scenario where someone who has had their Command for 6 months will keep it over someone who has had it for 3+ years purely because they have been in the company longer. Fair?

The whole thing is bl00dy mess....... there are only a very few who will not be affected by the fallout. I think BALPA will be receiving less in the way of subs in the not too distant future......

A4:(

[Viscount Sussex]

:hmm:

A couple of questions.

1) What is the main purpose of Captains Seniority List?
2) Do you think it should be ignore?
3) What do you think is the fairest way of doing this?
You have 400 pilots but you only need 300 pilots.
How would you do it?
Please, only serious answers, thanks.

:confused:

[Devils Advocate]

LIFO is the only way - regardless of fleet, rank or position !

[Jack The Lad]

Viscount

I think there is a fair way to do things and there is an expedient way to do things. A lot depends on what situation the airline is in, financially, and what agreements it has in force for its pilots.

An airline in financial difficulty, which is probably the only reason it would make redundancies in the first place, could be excused for making the minimum statutory payments and taking the least-cost option for shedding crews (indeed, it has a responsibility to do so). That is not unreasonable, because it is also in the best interests of those pilots it retains that it makes the best financial decsions.

Ability has nothing to do with any of this; if a captain is deemed suitable to be such, then it is a no cost factor. If he wasn't suitable, then he shouldn't be there anyway.

Training personnel are different, because they have been chosen (hopefully) because of their ability and attributes to be so. They should have their own seniority list.

So, what is fair?

I think most agree that LIFO is a fair principle, in so far as anyone will loose their jobs.

The airline should probably ask for voluntary redundancies first, so as to limit the number of compulsory redundancies. It may not do this if it is not obliged to do so under employment law.

Demotion is most fairly dealt with on the seniority basis of the promotion. Perceived ability should not be an issue here either. Hopefully you were promoted when you reached the required standard and experience, so that has its own seniority list based only on the date of upgrade.

BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon.

Call me cynical? Yes, you'd be 'right on'.

Sorry, but true.

Jack

[Viscount Sussex]

Jack The Lad

I think I am very much on side with what you say in many aspects.
Unfortunately it's not the way things are going here with the company or BALPA for that matter.
All is not lost in my eyes.
I think justice should prevail and I for one will do my best to that end.

:(

[Shaman]

<< BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon. >>

What garbage. The MYT reps are doing their best to sort out this mess, not those in charge of counting pennies.

[Jack The Lad]

Shaman

RTFQ!

I refer to BALPA, the organisation, not the MYT reps or any other airline reps. I have the greatest respect for the voluntary, unpaid and often thankless work most of the reps do, under difficult circumstances. Trouble is they are often misled or let down by the Organisation that has a different agenda all too often.

You might wish to retract your 'Garbage' comment!

[wingman1]

At the end of the day i think it has to be LIFO. Surely it doesn't matter if pilots are just passing checks by the skin of their teeth or not, if they pass then they are good enough. Same with promotion to the LHS (and demotions, redundancies etc.), it shouldn't be picked from a list of the best,it should be seniority, if they pass the command course then they ARE good enough, end of story.

LIFO is the way to go regardless of age, sex, creed or colour (fleet, type etc.).

Wingman;)

[Viscount Sussex]

:hmm:

I don't think I made it clear enough.

I will say it again. I am totally in agreement with LIFO for redundancies, but I would like to see seniority from the Captains Seniority List to be used for demotion. The Captains Seniority List is not a "best pilots list", it's just a seniority list that has always been there and people get onto it as soon as they get their commands regardless of how good or how marginal they are. People come off this list as they retire or leave the company's employment. When somebody leaves the company, everybody on that list moves up one position regardless of ability or how well they get on with the company managers or trainers, etc.
A pilot becomes eligible for command in MYT according to the lay down requirements of the Pilot Policies and Procedures and length of service is not one of them. Therefore why should it then become for demotion. People should be demoted in the reverse order in which they were promoted.
I’ll spell it out again.
LIFO is OK for redundancy but not for demotion in my opinion.
An existing (old and established) seniority list is being binned and replaced by a new seniority list just created and nobody has been consulted. It has not been put to a ballot.
The reason…maybe pennies, maybe depends on who negotiated the whole deal, I don’t know, but it is not right.
The repercussions could be huge. Change of base for commanders, ratings onto other types, further demotions, future promotions and future vacancies.

:}

[Jack The Lad]

Viscount

I'd be interested to learn what it is about the proposed method that you find disagreeable. It sounds like it relates to demotion?

[Viscount Sussex]

Yes. As I said before, I believe that since promotion is not just a direct result of length of service it should not be the determining factor for demotion.
For example, you could have two individuals joining a company. Lets say pilot #1 has 5000 hours and joins the company in March. Pilot #2 has 3000 and joins in February the same year. When a vacancy occurs, pilot#1 has the minimum number of hours required and is suitable for command. Pilot#2 doesn't have the minimum hours required. Pilot #1 gets promoted. Three or four years later, pilot #2 has the hours required and subsequently gets his command.
A couple of months later, the company needs to lay-off pilots.
Those pilots that joined the company last, are laid-off. The majority of those pilots laid-off are first officers/co-pilots. Now, you have the right number of pilots, but you need to balance the number of captains and first officers. So, who would you demote first, pilot #1 or pilot #2?
:uhoh::sad::oh: :ouch: :ooh: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Mowgli]

I speak as one who is still in the "at risk" of compulsary redundancy category despite the new numbers (77) needed to go. In a more favourable climate, I could reasonably have expected a "look-in" at command given my sim/line assessments of late. However, in the game of snakes and ladders that is our industry I am facing redundancy on the LIFO principle which is the norm. I have accepted this piece of misfortune. Since I have accepted possibly losing my job under these rules, I feel that Capts losing their commands under LIFO should accept it also. It's bad luck for some, beneficial for others, but removes any subjectivity of possibly assessing potential demotees using any other process.
In a similar vein I have had to accept some who are above me on the list who have far fewer hours than me and may therefore be judged "less useful" at the moment, due to the fact that they were cadets and therefore entering the ladder whilst still learning their trade. I accept this situation with good grace - good luck to them I say. Maybe it will be easier for me to get a position elsewhere because of my greater experience, and therefore there is fairness at play in that these lower experience people but with great potential, are being protected somewhat by the system.

Those Capts facing demotion will be repromoted using the LIFO principle in the future.

As one who is in a vulnerable position due to LIFO, I suggest that it is a fair system and Capts who will be demoted because of it should take some comfort in the fact that they could be in a much worse situation. One old Capt once said to me that he based his finances on being an FO, and anything extra was a bonus.

[Jack The Lad]

Viscount

Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the answer is simple; Pilot 2 would face demotion first due to the fact that he should be lower on the Captain's seniority list.

If however both Pilot 1 & 2 were demoted and one of them had to be made redundant (an unlikely scenario) then Pilot 1 would be the one to face redundancy as he joined last.

In the same way, imagine that you had a First Officer that had been with the airline for 15 years and had never been upgraded (it happens). Then the airline faced some savage cuts and lots of Captains were demoted and one of those Captains had only been with the airline for 7 years, it would be proper for him to face redundancy before the 15 year man.

As I say, it s simple to me, but others will undoubtably see it in a different light.

[Daysleeper]

Lets face it the company would simply like to lay off all the boeing and MCd D pilots as those fleets are going, most of those pilots are more senior and thus paid more and it saves on retraining. Thats the cheapest option and without BALPA thats exactly what would happen.
To counter that LIFO is the simplest and fairest way of dealing with redundancies and demotions.
At least they are offering VR so that will thin some ranks at the top.

[facsimile]

JTL couldn't agree more but life is never that simple and I'm sure if you read your own company redundancy clause in your contract you will see how easy it is to take a different view.

Normally cost of retraining senior pilots, retention of pilots regarded as essential and fleet redundancy are covered in such a way as to make the whole process a nightmare for all involved.

Good luck to MYT one hopes when the debt for equity deal is finally thrashed out the company will emerge stronger to face the future.

[Viscount Sussex]

:ok:
Jack The Lad

I agree with you completely, but that’s not the way the company is doing it.
BALPA was the one that insisted in using LIFO on everything including, Captains demotions, basing, etc., and disregarded the existing seniority lists.
It’s mad. The company is looking at it and thinking “great, BALPA have done the dirty job for as.” They don’t have to do anything. BALPA takes the blame and the company get what they want. A lot of people don’t agree, but are frightened or shocked and they are going along with it. They are not looking ahead at the consequences and potential implications of getting rid of the seniority lists. If and when people get re-trained onto the Airbus 330’s, guess who is first on them? Not even the most senior trainers, but the most junior captains on the fleet. When it comes to re-locating people, you have the same scenario. I know of a captain that is going to be “bumped”. I think that’s what they are calling it. He will have to accept another base or accept redundancy. So he has told the company he rather be demoted than change base. Another captain that knew that he would be “bumped”, elected for the severance package, for that very reason. However if you have a mortgage insurance and elect voluntary redundancy, the insurance company will not pay. Mind you, that’s another issue.
As I said, it seems very unfair the way it has been handled and although the BALPA company council (the majority of them) have lost in seniority, they are not immediately affected by it. One Captain in the cc has actually benefited by it. But the BALPA cc has worked very hard on this one. I for one am very grateful for the work they have done, but totally disagree with creating a new seniority list and getting rid of the old ones, particularly at this moment in time.
:(

[squeakyunclean]

There are still two seniority lists. They will continue to be used to decide, for example, 330 ratings, basing etc. The pilot’s date of joining has been added to each list for ‘transparency’.

Date of joining is being used for redundancy only, as per the contract/ppp, i.e. nothing has changed.

Apparently when a company uses LIFO for redundancies, provided date of joining is strictly adhered to, a Captain may be made redundant and offered a new position as a F/O, despite other F/Os being made redundant. If LIFO were not to be used this could not happen. In other words a Captain would be made redundant, no job.

Also, other than for disciplinary reasons, there is no provision for demotion in our contract/ppp. Any pilot demoted would have a case for constructive dismissal.

The BALPA CC are doing an excellent job, don’t be surprised if there are only a handful of compulsory redundancies at the end of this thanks to their hard work.

[jumpseater]

In reply to the original question, yes myself. It was for ATC training, as an ATSA. I was redeployed, on last in company, first out, others who had longer service from other departments before joing ATC, after me, (and not having commenced OJT as an ATCO), stayed in! Both a potential loss for the company!, as well obviously, and very personally, for me.

[Viscount Sussex]

:rolleyes:
squeakyunclean

I don’t really know what you mean by ‘transparency’.
I don’t know if I am in total agreement with your reasoning.
Date of joining is not being used just for redundancies as you say.
Captains are being made redundant against first officers that are being kept on, although these first officers joined the company later. So that’s the first inconsistency and disregard for LIFO.
I am ‘at risk’ and I know first officers not ‘at risk’ (of redundancy) that are junior to me.
Captains, as long as they accept redundancy, are being taken back by the company with the original date of joining and other first officers are being laid-off. That’s the second inconsistency of LIFO being applied.
So in effect LIFO is being used for demotion and not for redundancy.
So the other question is:
What are they making redundant? Is it pilots or captains and first officers, or just captains?
As I said earlier on this thread:
400 pilots – 100 pilots = 300 pilots. (LIFO).
300 pilots / 2 = 150 captains + 150 first officers. (Captains Seniority List).
I say it again is not right and therefore not fair.
Next question: Is it legal?
That I think I better ask a lawyer in employment law that specializes in aviation related matters.
I think they are better informed that most pilots.
:D

[squeakyunclean]

VS

‘transparency’ was just a quote from the Chief Pilots memo, I’ll not try and explain what he meant.

It’s not my reasoning either, it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.

If a pilot who joined the company after you is ‘not at risk of redundancy’ and you are ‘at risk of redundancy’, there has been a simple mistake.

The only inconsistency I can see is a Captain with a date of joining before a F/O could find himself redundant. The difference between a Captain at risk and a F/O at risk is that the Captain will be offered another job as a pilot, albeit as a F/O, the F/O will not.

[Viscount Sussex]

:oh:

squeakyunclean

Please explain what you mean by saying “it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.”
What is happening in accordance with our contract?
Where does it say in our contract that our seniority list will be pushed aside? This is the first time it was going to be used for its proper purpose, but it gets ignored and a new one produced.
Looking at the Pilot Policies and Procedures manual, PPP-6-2 under Promotion is clear how people get promoted. It mentions three things ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’. Seniority from the Captains Seniority List determines who the more senior captains are, so in my view it should be reversed for demotion.
Where is it written about demotion based on date of joining?
Who has negotiated the new terms of conditions for all pilots without previous consultation?
Who benefits from the new list? Why change a list that has been there for years? Has anybody involved in the draft of the new list moved up in seniority? Have a look at the Captains list issued by the chief pilot on July 2004 and then compare it with the new list. Have a look at the names that have moved up.
:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

[squeakyunclean]

VS, tried to answer the points in order

1. My contract/ppp says redundancies will be decided by last in first out, what does your contract say?

2. It doesn’t.

3. Who said the seniority lists are to be used to decide redundancy? Does your contract say something like ‘ redundancy will be decided by a pilots position on the Captains/First Officers/Second Officers/Flight Engineers seniority list’ (delete as reqd)?

4. It doesn’t mention that promotions will depend on company requirements, the opinions of the training dept. etc Date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, a pilots suitability for command is, that is what the command board is for. That’s why date of joining is used to decide redundancies. If the company announced demotions I would expect it to be decided in accordance with my contract/ppp. Apart from disciplinary reasons there is no provision. ‘Reversed for demotion’, does that mean you start at the bottom of the list, have a demotions board, a demotion assessment in the sim and finally a demotion comp check? How else would you assess ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’? Are you suggesting the last few on the Captains seniority list are just demoted? If commands were just given to the pilots at the top of the F/Os seniority list I’d have to agree.

5. It isn’t, demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons.

6. Nobody, because there are no new terms and conditions. If there were any changes BALPA did the talking.

7. Nobody benefits from the new list. Redundancies are decided on date of joining, a pilots position on the seniority lists is not relevant. The new list is not a replacement, it has been produced for use with the options pack. Nobody has been moved up in seniority because the new list is not a seniority list, it’s a date of joining list. The current seniority lists will remain and everyone will remain in the order they always were, some may find themselves on a different list.

[Viscount Sussex]

:{ :{ :{

squeakyunclean

In answer to point 1 of your last post. My contract doesn’t say anything about redundancies. There is no mention of policies for demotion in my copy of the PPP manual. Would you mind quoting a reference for this particular point, so that I can read it, please?
Regarding point 3 of your post. I think you haven’t read my previous post carefully. I have never said that seniority lists were to be used to decide redundancies. RTFQ = ½ TBA.
Now point 4 of your post. I have said it all along. I agree with LIFO (date of joining) for redundancies. Next thing you mention is the command board. That is a fairly new thing. It was only formed a couple of years ago. However the command board and the opinion of the training department I believe is very important. They are able to judge the suitability of the individual, not just to fly a single engine ILS, but to command an aircraft and its crew, to represent the company anywhere and to have the adequate maturity for the job. When you say that date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, that in itself can be very dangerous. As I said on earlier posts, date of joining cannot be the determining factor for many reasons; lack of suitability, lack of experience, lack of ability. Not every person that becomes a pilot is a suitable candidate to be a commander. To answer your question regarding demotion. It should be last captain promoted, first captain demoted. Simple. Not need for assessment, that was carried out during the promotion process.
Point 5 of your post. Here we agree on something. At last. Demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons (that I believe is taken care of by the law). However, what do you think it’s happening to those captains that are being laid-off and re-employed (re-deployed they called it)? They are being asked to resign and accept a new contract as SFO’s. Isn’t that a demotion? It is in my eyes, whatever they call it.
Point 6. I think I answered this one the paragraph above. Change of job description, change of salary, etc. That I think qualifies as new terms and conditions don’t you?
Point 7. I think you are repeating yourself, but again I’ll answer it. I haven’t said that a seniority list should determine redundancies. I'll say it once more. I agree with LIFO (date of joining) for redundancies. I must however apologise for saying that some individual or individuals have moved up the list. No, they haven’t moved up the list. The seniority list is being ignored for re-deployment and a list using date of joining has been issued on the 8th September 2004 together with the rest of the paperwork (options pack, etc).
I don’t mind that list or that list being used for redundancies, but I do mind that list being use for re-deployment. And yes, there have been individuals that directly or indirectly have benefited from this. And some individual or individuals have been instrumental in the changes.

:rolleyes: :suspect: :suspect:


Well, I think that clarifies my views, but I don't expect you to agree with me, particularly if you were junior to me on the Captains Seniority List before the changes and in a couple of months time, I will be your first officer.
On the other hand two professionals and CRM will prevail and together we’ll take that Airbus from A to B and back. And since you’ll be a richer man than me and a gentleman, you’ll offer to pay for all that beer in the bar.

:ok:

[kinsman]

The CC have introduced a single seniority list based on date of joining! In principle I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining, in fact it makes sense.

The issue is that our contract (the PPP manual) contains two seniority lists, one for Captains and one for F/O's. If you had asked any pilot in the company three weeks ago how demotions would take place the vast majority would have said according to the Captains seniority list! Here then is the problem, the CC have changed the accepted principle of the two seniority list system without consulting the people they represent. If you promote Captains on suitability and seniority then it should apply in reverse order under the current system. The reason the CC have justified the use of LIFO is because the company does not want to pay the demoted Captains their former command salaries. Hence redundancy is the only option. This is simply the mechanical method of demotion and should not alter the principle of command seniority.

The job of the CC is to represent the best interests of the work force, many do not feel they have done that in this case. The company don't feel they have done so either and have even said so in writing. I have had extended dialoge with most of the members of the CC and believe they have take this action in the main for what they consider good reason but have misjudged badly the mood of the crews. I do not accept the view held by some that the use of LIFO will redress the inequities perceived or real of the last few years regarding promotions. This is not the time!

The CC have to be able to hold up the rules for demotion and be able to say this is fair and without question is in accordance with the PPP and accepted practice. At this point they cannot do that which is why emotions are high and so much debate has taken place. The only way they could have achieved this was to ballot the crews on adopting a single seniority list based on LIFO. As it stands they are wrong in the eyes of many they represent and indeed the company. The company have their own reasons for letting the CC go ahead with this which is another issue.

I speak as one who has no axe to grind on this issue as I will be unaffected directly by either method and indeed had I been consulted would have supported the adoption of a single seniority list. But the way this has been done is plain wrong and very unfair.


:(

[Daysleeper]

I'm sure someone will correct me but I always thought that it was the JOB and not the PERSON that was being made redundant. Thus how can they "demote" captains by making them redundant and rehiring them as first officers on new contracts. As they are also making FO's redundant surely any of the FO's could make a claim for unfair dismissal as while they are being made redundant someone else is being hired to do the same job.
Confused?

[Viscount Sussex]

:cool:

kinsman

I am pleased to hear somebody else with a similar view that has gets no advantage one way or another. I have always believe that because of my position in the Captains Seniority list I would be demoted. So, it doesn’t matter which way it is done. In fact I have always felt I would be pushed sideways either way. However, I have been told by a representative of the CC that I haven’t got to worry about my position because of the number of people that have already resigned.
Well it doesn’t matter where I end up. As a matter of fact I might well move on anyway and I have been thinking about it before hand. However still doesn’t make the whole process right. I know of at least two captains from the Airbus and Boeing fleet that decided for this reason to resign. Great loss. Both nice guys and popular colleagues. One I have seen his performance during training and is clearly above average and for that reason was promoted very early in his short career with the company. He will be demoted using the new seniority, but he might have been safe with the original system. So he will have no problem in getting himself another job but the company has lost a bl**dy good pilot and a hell of a nice guy. And guess what? He resigned and said to me. “I am so disappointed how they have dealt with the whole thing that I am walking away from it all.” He hasn’t yet got a firm offer of alternate employment but had enough. Sad.

:hmm:

[squeakyunclean]

The reference to redundancies is in the ppp, as is the reference to disciplinary procedures, don’t know the page numbers though. I believe the ppp is part of the contract.

What did you mean by proper use of the Captains seniority list? I was never any good at cryptic crosswords!

All I am saying in the waffle about a ‘demotion board’ is that there is no policy for demotions, simply picking from the bottom is arbitrary in the extreme, but if that is the policy then so be it, but it isn’t.

There is a new post from one of the CC on arena. That sums it up for me.


Now, about that beer.......

[Viscount Sussex]

:D

Yeh, that's more like it.

We'll leave it to the legal beagles and we concentrate on the good staff. Mine is a pint of Harveys please.
Thank you.

:ok:

[Jack The Lad]

Viscount

I agree with you entirely.

Just a suggestion; bale out now and go for Ryanair. You and 76 of your colleagues are worried about your jobs; there are at least a handful that would gladly give you theirs at Ryanair, if you believe their rants here. You'd actually get a pay increase too.

My only word of caution is watch them scatter with the four winds, when push comes to shove! Go for it anyway, because their logic is that they want BALPA and will give their jobs up. You will loose yours because of BALPA! Ironical, isn't it?

Besides, you can also award yourself an extra 1% on top, because you'll have no subscriptions to pay either. Quids in, I reckon.

[Dengue_Dude]

The assertion that you make a 'position' redundant is correct.

When redundancies are being done, the company has an obligation to offer the affected personnel any other jobs that are available within the company and I think that they must match the 'old' salary for at six months too (please check).

If the captains' posts are being permanently deleted but first officers' posts are available, then they should be offered to those affected before the company goes to the market place to recruit.

That said, MYT and previously Airtours have been known to be a bit cavalier in the way that these issues have been addressed.

That said, I would be SERIOUSLY inclined to run what is happening past a good Employment Law solicitor who, whilst not cheap, can often affect your individual outcome.

It is possible that recently HR have had to be squeaky clean (no reference to a previous poster) and that they are well within their rights (perhaps not morally but within the law of employment).

So, as the old adage goes 'don't assume, check'.

Good luck guys, I knew as soon as the DC10s went, the Boeings would be next and that's why I left when I did.

Bye for now.

DD

[Viscount Sussex]

:\ :\ :\

Jack The Lad


For all my sins, I am a BALPA member, but not for long.
A lot of people don’t agree with what the BALPA CC has come up with, included the company, but they threatened to walk out of the talks if their demands were not met.
So, for that reason LIFO has also being applied to demotion rather than seniority. I think that the majority of people (except some, but not all of the CC members) agree that LIFO for redundancy was the way forward and that seniority should be applied when it comes to demotions. However some individual in the CC and a couple of others possibly associated with or near to the CC manoeuvred the deal to their own gain. And yes one individual in the CC has gain when compared to me around 36 positions on the list.
Well, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Many people are digging a whole in the sand and pretend is not happening, but it is. Some guy said to me: “well, if this lot go under some of these guys may end up being your chief pilot or whatever in your next airline, so I am keeping quiet”.
However I do know of a reasonable number of people that think the whole thing stinks. And there are some prepared to challenge it when it comes to it. So, for the time being, just seat low and wait.
PS. Cheers Dude
:cool:

[John Boeman]

Vis Sus, re redundancy policy, the ref you were looking for is, I believe, PPP-7-10, second para from bottom.

It has been interesting to watch the opinions of those chaps who were lucky enough to join the company and, (for whatever reason, no doubt there were many), gain commands ahead of of people who joined the company before them.
Those with longer service who took longer to gain their commands (again for whatever reason) need now be in no doubt as to their "obvious" inferiority in some peoples eyes.
It's enough to make a chap weep.

[kinsman]

JB

I don't think the real issue has anything to do with who did not get their command when because they were as you imply not very good or on the wrong fleet or their face did not fit. But if you really want to know who has been using that as a reason for the use of LIFO based on date of joining for demotions then look no further than BALPA.

The issue is should we accept the effective introduction of a common seniority list without consultation? Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

A Captain is a Captain no matter when or how he became one or how many times he was passed over or failed. The issue is the accepted two seniority list system in use at MYT. LIFO should indeed be used for demotions, LIFO based on date of promotion! That or ballot the crews on the introduction of a single list based on date of joining.

How many of you working for BA or any other UK operator would accept what is happening in BALPA's name at MYT out of interest?

[A Very Civil Pilot]

As a few posters have pointed out, if an FO is made redundant, the job cannot be offered to a new hire (i.e demoted Capt re-employed on a new contract) as the position has ceased to exist, and it would be unfair dismissal ir respect to the FO.

Howevere I think it depends on what you're employed to do. Are you employed as a Pilot with a rank of FO or Captain, or are you employed as an FO or Captain ?


If it is the latter I think that the redundant FO has more of a chance of persuing an unfair dismissal case, as the Co has stated that FOs are not needed, and so can't re-hire a new FO to fill your place.

This is by no means a legal standpoint, just my view from having been there myself. Best of luck to you all.

[Viscount Sussex]

:(

A Very Civil Pilot

I have asked that question before, but I get no answers.
When I’ve got the job, I’ve got a contract saying I was going to be a First Officer. When you get promoted you don’t get another contract. I didn’t receive one.
Now there are two things happening.
The company need fewer pilots, so they decide to cut back in numbers.
By laying from the bottom based on DOJ, they end up with more captains than first officers. So, they then say we need to make captains redundant. So they are applying LIFO (DOJ) to do that and re-employing us as SFO.
First officers are being made redundant.
Is this legal, right or fair?
BALPA will not reconsider going back in their decision about demotions or re-deployment as it is refered.
The BALPA main negotiator is on leave (good timing!) and BALPA CC chairman was on leave last week and this week is on a longhaul trip.
Nobody in BALPA head office were able to help me, because they had no information about the negotiations and they were not prepared to put me through to the BALPA solicitors or even give me their address.
Great, hey!

:confused: :( :hmm: :ugh: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[beardy]

I would imagine that any decision by management negotiators would have to be ratified by the management board. It would seem only just that similar arrangements should apply to the BALPA negotiators decisions. Is there to be a referendum? Should there be one it is in the interests of everyone to swell the number of BALPA members in order to get the opinion and possible approval of as large a number as possible of the pilots.

Of course the decisions would have to be justified and set against the alternatives as they were presented. This implies a publicity campaign to keep the pilots informed. From reading these posts that doesn't seem to have been happening so far. In circumstances like these ignorance is not bliss.

Good luck

[micky320]

For info when we had post Sept 11 redundancies at Air 2000 it was conducted on a LIFO. With regard to LHS it was last promoted first to RHS (on a seperate 'demoted captains' payscale, which was top FO's salery I believe). This was all endorsed and negotiated by BALPA and they did do a lot of work to minimise redundancies by introducing part paid winter leave and other measures to satisfy the management. Your CC are MYT pilots after all and will, I am sure, do all they can to preserve as many pilot jobs as possibe! Besides they are all you have on your side so maybe it is best to lobby them directly, tell THEM what you want and come up with as many ideas as YOU can to offset job losses.

However it happens it is always pants for some, but rest assured it WILL happen and YOU must make it as palatable as you can and mimimise the numbers of your collegues who will be made redundant.

Get your CC to contact First Choice CC for ideas.

Good luck, we all know how awful these times are:(

[Viscount Sussex]

:)

micky320

Thank you very much for your post, constructive, helpful and unbiased.
I have spoken to one of our BALPA guys. He is a very nice chap, but I think it’s a little late. The workforce is unfortunately now divided, which is no good. Some of the BALPA CC members believe they have done the right thing, but I think it’s a long way of being right or fair.
Thanks once again.
Cheers.
VS

:ok:

[Jack The Lad]

Viscount

Don't loose heart; it's never too late until such time as the deal is done.

I imagine, from what you say, that there will be many guys that feel the same as you, that it is too late to do anything about it. I don't think that is true. It will be if you do nothing.

I cannot advise you on contract or employment law and that may well overide what are established principles in other airlines. You may need to seek some expert advice here and you should do so, as a group if necessary, to keep the costs at an acceptable level. That is what BALPA should be doing, but history shows they did not in the past, especially in the case of the Dan Air pilots when they actively obstructed them (their own members) from mounting an independant challenge

There should be one seniority list for redundancy purposes. LIFO. No other way is acceptable. Can't think that anyone would disagree with that.

There should be a separate list; a Captain's seniority list, which is also based on LIFO, i.e. date of command determines your position, regardless of when you joined the airline. I cannot think that anyone, unless they have a personal vested interest, could really object to that.

The above is simple, straight forward and probably acceptable as fair by most reasonable individuals.

What muddies the waters a bit (probably qute a bit in the case of MYT) is the issue of having to retrain pilots onto a different types and/or resettle them to a different base. These problems are more dfficult to solve but should not detract from the fundamental principles of fairness.

I think you should establish your rights and then set about achieving them.

Easy from the outside looking in, I know. Good luck to all.

[wheelbarrow]

In jmc Airlines, post Sept11, the company tried to make the following happen:

A: 55 Commanders back to SFO's.

B: 60 SFO/FO's redundant.

The company failed because of a few reasons, mainly:

1: There was, and still is no clause in PILOT contracts for reduction of pay. They can demote, but cannot remove command pay from a commander.

2: The BALPA CC were a decent bunch of guys

3: The membership supported them wholeheartedly

4: The (then) Chief Pilot was probably "one of the boys"

5: The company actually proved themselves either very generous or rather soft.

I hope that you MYT guys and gals get a satisfactory solution to this problem.

If there is hope, it is this:

NO commander was demoted in jmc and no SFO or FO was made compulsarily redundant post Sept11. And I believe the industry was worse then than it is now.

And for the record, jmc/TCUK run a COMBINED seniority list. i.e. new commander who was senior was never at risk of losing his new command. FAIR IS FAIR.

[Viscount Sussex]

:)

micky320, Jack The Lad & wheelbarrow

Thank you all.
It’s very touching to find people out there in other companies sympathetic towards us. I wonder if some of the BALPA wheels are reading the posts on this thread.
I have contacts in JMC and know a chap that was initially demoted and subsequently re-instated.
Time is running out for us and I believe now we have to wait until people get demoted or re-deployed as they prefer to call it (that’s legal), before any further action is taken.
Keep your ears to the ground.
I’ll try to keep you posted.
Cheers.
:ok: :ok:

[faq]

Will any BALPA reps be demoted or redundant under current proposals?

[Viscount Sussex]

:mad:

faq

No. To the contrary, one of the CC members has gone up by 36 positions when you compare it to me. He would have definitely been demoted before BALPA changed the way demotions are going to be carried out.
However, allegedly this individual was not involved in the negotiations.
The whole thing is a little messy, to say the least.

:mad:

[FlapsOne]

Hi all

A genuine question please.

On page 1 of this thread it was stated that this LIFO male/female issue was because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Now, if this is the case, why are people having a go at the Balpa CC if their actions/recommendations are restricted by an Act of Parliament?

I stress, this is a genuine question and not meant to be inflammatory.

[Jack The Lad]

Flaps One

I accept that your question is genuine, but I think the reason is very simple. There are clearly many other more fundamental issues that have arisen out of the first post that have greater and more far reaching implications than just the male/female issue. That's the way this forum business works.

It would be daft to start a new post on what is principally the same subject becuase it didn't directly relate to the first person's post, don't you think? We would have 10 different posts on essentially the same subject.

VS....I would hope that said individual who would scoot up the seniority list by 36 places abstained from any votes or discussions, on the grounds that he had a compulsory 'conflict of interest' to declare. If he did, then he should be applauded! Any reference to male should also imply female and singular should also include plural, for the sake of correctness.

Besides; having a pop at BALPA is always fair game, due to their dark deeds

[Viscount Sussex]

;)

I am lead to believe that the deal is not sealed yet. Apparently a few things could still happen. I wasn't told anymore than that.
In the next few days we'll be told a bit more.
Whatever the outcome I know one thing. Apart from the people that have directly benefited out of the deal or the negotiators, nobody agrees with the whole thing.
Although not a lot, there is some comfort there.
Cheers Jack.
;)

[kinsman]

The company would like to use the Captains seniority list for demotions but will not do so unless there is a call from the shop floor in sufficent numbers. They have agreed to accept the CC's wish to use LIFO reluctantly.

[kinsman]

Wheelbarrow

It is not important why the two list system exists! The fact is it does and not just at MYT. I have stated here and on the company wed site that I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining.

My objection is four members of the CC have in effect introduced a single seniority list without consulting the crews at this critical time. The CC represent less than 50% of the crews. The IPA asked to be included in talks and I have heard today the CC were asked by the company if they wanted the IPA involved but the offer of help was declined!

The company is not happy with the situation and nor are a large number of the crews but the CC will not be moved. So as far as I am concerned they are not acting in the best interests of either the crews or the company on this issue and have created division within the work force that will take many years to sort out and cost the company dearly in goodwill. So whilst I support the CC on many issues and even the concept of a single seniority list I cannot see how any fair minded individual can say the CC have handled this issue well or even correctly. The longer this goes on the more convinced I and others become that the CC have got this badly wrong all be it with the best of intentions.

I hope they soon see this and take action. Either to reverse their position or ballot the crews if they fail to do either membership of BALPA will be badly effected and further damage will be done to the company.:(

[sitting comfortably]

"So you have a scenario where someone who has had their Command for 6 months will keep it over someone who has had it for 3+ years purely because they have been in the company longer. Fair?"

Sounds OK to me A4? That's the idea of a LIFO surely, DOJ?

[kinsman]

Very fair if that is the accepted system in play at the time! The point is that this was not the accepted system for demotions!

LIFO is accepted for the reduction in size of the overall establishment and is not contested.

[FLEX42]

There will be those who agree with demotion from date of joining company and those who agree with it from date of command. It obviously depends on where you sit. in MYT, where there is conflict in areas such as base change requests, courses for 767/A330, leave preference and a whole host of things the "seniority list" IS King, and not the date of joining the company. Now the seniority list is conveniently dismissed by the BALPA CC, and against the company's wishes as has already been pointed out. But that is not the real issue here as seniority lists are something to resolve at another date.

As Kinsman has mentioned, the point is that the BALPA CC did not consult or ballot their members and appear to be at variance with the BALPA policy and its previous practices on demotion. They are still blinkered to all that is happening around them and fail to realise, or at least won't admit, that they have got it so wrong on this occasion. MYT BALPA CC LISTEN TO YOUR MEMBERS, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SOME, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !

Whilst you can't make everyone happy, had the CC taken heed of its members at least we could have moved forward in a united way. As it is now, there much divisiveness and anger spreading throughout the workforce. The rifts appearing and the fallout from this will take a long time to repair if urgent action isn't taken to get members onside !

[facsimile]

Demotion should be on Command seniority but it is not possible under present employment law so the Captain has to be made redundant and then re-employed as a FO.
Redundancy has always been LIFO so it must apply in this case.
It would appear command seniority lists are now meaningless and a single seniority list possibly indicating Captain or F/O is all that is required.
Get the feeling BALPA had no choice and would have found itself in a difficult legal position had it taken a different view.
I suppose in truth once we join a company it should not be possible to leapfrog to a higher seniority by virtue of an early command, we are all employed as pilots, perhaps status is irrelevent to the issue.

[squeakyunclean]

Quote, from the Airtours (now MYT obviously) Pilots Polcies and Procedures manual, which forms part of the contract of employment.

PPP-6-1
SENIORITY
“Seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment (or calculated date of commencement of employment, if applicable)”

PPP-7-10
REDUNDANCY
“Redundancy for pilots is based on a “last In, First Out” policy. This may be supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.”

Quote, from the COMPANY (NOT BALPA) announcement headed PROPOSED FLEET REDUCTION - FLIGHT DECK SELECTION PROCEDURE.

“Captain Redundancy – Redeployment to Senior First Officer

As a result of the imbalance between Captains and FO/SFO resulting from the application of LIFO it will be necessary for a number of Captains’ positions to be made redundant.”

All the above is attributable only to the company, BALPA have interpreted and the conclusions have been debated on this forum. Are BALPA right or wrong?

[kinsman]

Squeacky

You have been a little selective in your extract!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-6-1

There are seperate seniority lists for Captains and First Officers/Senior First Officers. First Officers/Senior First Officers promoted to command from the same Command List irrespective of different appointment dates created by the training plan will be listed on the Captains Seniority list in the same sequence as their names were recorded on the First Officer Seniority list.

A Seniority list as at the date of issue of this revised Manual is at Annex A. Updated lists will be promulgated from time to time in Flight Crew Notices(FCN), and the Chief Pilot holds a Master List.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPP-7-10

Redundancy

Redundancy for pilots is based on a "Last In, First Out" policy. This maybe supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in paragraph 7-10 you will see no reference to date of joining! However, it has always been accepted that this meant date of joining in the same way we had all accepted that demotions would be according to the Captains Seniority list in Annex A!!!

Once again no one has any problem with using date of joining for overall work force reduction and this may include some Captains who gained very early or direct entry Commands. Redundancy/Redeployment is the mechanical method of demoting a Captain to remove the extra salary, under the current PPP this should be done in accordance with the Captains Seniority list.

The Company wanted to use the two Seniority lists for Redundancy which would have meant one or two Captains who are at present going to leave the Company would have stayed. The CC chose to use Global LIFO not the Company. Global LIFO based on date of joining in fact is not in accordance with the PPP as you can see from 7-10. Which states only LIFO with two seniority lists e.g. "last in, First out" according to the positions on the respective list.

However, you can justify using date of joining for redundancy in terms of leaving the company based on paragraph 1, PPP-6-1. But this is the heart of the problem and is open to question especially when applied to demotions no matter how you choose to mechanically carry them out. This is why other airlines have stuck to the Captains Seniority list for demotions when two lists exist.

The Crew Council chose to apply LIFO based on date of joining to demote Captains against the expressed wish of the management. The CC had a choice and they are wrong, very wrong!

:ok:

[squeakyunclean]

I didn’t quote the paragraphs regarding the seniority lists because there is no mention of company seniority, only seniority within rank. It doesn’t appear to contradict the first paragraph.

If seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment and LIFO is used for redundancy, and the company are making Captains redundant then, err, so you are saying that, err, mmm, but…..

Oh so seniority is not based on date of commencement of employment but based on your most recent change of role/position within the company. (Are you sure it says that?)

Ahh, it’s so much clearer now. The PPP manual should say that redundancy will be decided by seniority within rank, company seniority is irrelevant, because that is how other airlines do it, and the company want to do it that way anyway. Quick, call BALPA tell them to disregard the PPP and everyone will accept it.

Bye, bye

[gizard]

I wonder how many of the posts here and on Arena shouting their views about this subject are BALPA members and not just the spungers who take all the benefits to our pay and conditions that BALPA have fought for over the last years and are just too mean to pay their dues. A lot I think.

The BALPA members I have spoken to ARE SUPPORTING THE CC just because they are not posting does not mean there is no support!

The majority of the membership understand that the CC have stuck to LIFO because it is the only firm legal thing in that old out of date rag the PPP, and as for the Captains seniority list. All of us if we are honest with our selves know some of the Captains on the Captains seniority are there sooner than others because of who they drink or golf with and which fleet they are on has a lot to do with it. The list keeps changing every few months because some one complains so what use is it's value?

If you take the time to compare the LIFO and Captains seniority list there are ten or so Captains that will be effected over those who are in the frame on both lists depending on which method you use for selection and it is terrible that this is the case but there are guarantees that these pilots whose Captains position is made redundant will be offered a SFO position and will get back to the LHS. Little consolation I know but a job. I agree that it does seem unfair that a few people will keep their command when they are newly promoted but think of the majority and live with it because all this bitching will only make any future negotions difficult, the company is the fly on the wall here and in Arena and we are only helping them formulate a new attack on our conditions.

No wonder the company were not in favour of using LIFO for the reduction of Captains because most of these Captains are pilots on the Airbus and the management is Airbus. Think of the training cost, and do we realy want those other pilots on our fleet!
They would of ditched the Boeing and DC10 pilots if they could and taken back only the guys they wanted to drink and golf with and they would be at the bottom of all the lists that they choose to make.

Get real guys this is a money saving exercise and the more money they save the bigger the bonus for those at the top. If MYT has got the pilot numbers they want after this no more flying in both seats until all the Captains get back to the LHS and the FO's get their jobs back.

The HR department and the company management have more spin than Labour and have put the blame for all this at BALPA,s door but remember they are trying to reduce membership with the method they put news to the pilots and will put further cost cutting measures in place if they can. Some pilots are playing straight into their hands.

BALPA and the CC are working hard to save jobs and have done. FACT

[RoyHudd]

I am fed up with upset CP's, people who don't want to relocate, indignant BALPA members, and all. I've just lost my job for the 3rd time in 5 years, as an FO who could now be a Captain, but will now end up as an FO at the bottom of someone else's seniority list. I am a parent, and am over 40 years old.

Shut up and get a life, you selfish lot. Or at least, try to be constructive.

[squeakyunclean]

RH,
Shut up and get a life, you selfish ***. Or at least, try to be CONSTRUCTIVE!

[Nightmale]

Latest word on the street is that it's all change. Boeing's not going, possible some (maybe 3?) A320's going and many fewer redundancies all round. That's if they ever find the big picture!!

[gizard]

Roy Hud
Sorry you are loosing your job.
I feel that I was far from indigant as a BALPA member, only teling it like it is.
MYT is cutting jobs NOT BALPA.
Pilots may jump ship and the ship may sail on and you may be rescued from the life boat.
You and other pilots are on your own without BALPA and you should join or be prepaired to swim in a sea full of sharks that is aviation today.

P.S. Hows EMU

[Bernoulli]

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Just imagine how blo*dy awful it would be for all of us without BALPA. It would be like working for that O'Reilly chap at Ryanair.

OK, the solution's not perfect but it's better than the company's likely solution.

For those who have taken the pay rises and the steadily improving rostering on the back of their colleagues' subs to BALPA.....well who cares about your opinion anyway. You've sponged for too long. Go and join a non-union outfit and see how you get on there.

I'm with the silent majority backing BALPA.

[gizard]

Bernulli
The spungers may think the grass is greener but it still is fxxxxxx grass! BALPA are doing a good job for us.

I'm with the majority. And it's BALPA members with MYT

[kinsman]

Well I am a BALPA member and so are the many who have phoned me on this issue and we are not happy with the way the solutuon has been implemented! Lets remember BALPA only represent, at last count, half the pilot work force. Many who are unhappy with this are not effected either way and have no axe to grind.

Squeaky

Run the PPP past your local solicitor he will have a field day with it. As I have already said you can read it two ways even members of the CC admit that!

If the silent majority agree so be it and I will be very happy to accept that but as it stands this is wrong, lets take a ballot and find out, problem solved. Of course that is not going to happen.

As has been stated by one member of the CC either method could have been right but they have opted for this one, some of the CC were ready to go the other way the day before they voted on this.

Royhud

I am really sorry you are out of work again. Been there myself , four times in one year so I know how you feel. However, this issue is important and needs to be seen to be done correctly. Soft landing.

[really not]

I too am a BALPA member and am completely underwhelmed at how this has been handled. The organisation i pay hundreds of pounds a year in fees considers my opinion not worth asking, the company administration of the whole affair is, frankly laughable. the representative sent to two of the bases most affected was brusque, inflexible and has managed to alienate a large portion of the membership, indeed it was asked exactly whose side he was on!!

I can only hope that the forecasts come true and the gates at BA and Virgin open, sucking up all who want to go, leaving those who want to stay secure, and leading to a recruitment drive next year.

For the record, I consider the Company to have great potential if the re-financing comes through, and the crews and staff easily make up for the ineptitude of the administrative staff involved in this debacle.

Tin hat on, but not expecting much flak from those on the front line.

[Big Tudor]

gizard
Just to pick up on 2 of your points

1Think of the training cost,
Yes, that is what people who run businesses are supposed to do. Instead MYT are getting rid of crews who are trained and experienced on the Airbus and replacing them with people who are not. Hmm, that's a sensible idea.
2and do we really want those other pilots on our fleet! Considering some Boeing pilots have sworn they would rather saw their arms off than fly an Airbus then I guess this opinion goes both ways.

really not
Quite ironic isn't it that the most inept staff in the company seem to have avoided the redundancy axe!

[FLEX42]

Kinsman, BT, really not, all spot on in my opinion.

I WAS a BALPA member, but like many others in MYT I have awarded myself a 1% pay rise. Their arrogant attitude throughout means they no longer have my respect as a negotiating body.

Any news on the latest rumour that the 75's are staying and there'll be few, if any redundancies ? Let's hope :ok:

[A4]

If the 757's stay how can there be no redundancies? The idea of fleet rationalisation is because MYT have too much capacity - they HAVE to reduce the fleet.

Two bases are closing - period, others are summer only. There WILL be redundacies.

If they keep the Boings then there goes the cost savings (which is what the whole exercise is about) which come from a single fleet.

Whelk stool anyone?

A4 :hmm: :sad:

[squeakyunclean]

Derrr!!

The cost saving has been identified to be greater by ditching some of the airbus with their ludicrous lease arrangements, against the cost of keeping the desert rats.

(IF the rumour is true of course)

AND

if enough pilots leave because they have been called out of their respective holding pool(s) there will be no need for any redundancies. It's not rocket science.

Have a word with yourself before your next post!!

[kinsman]

Glad they thought this all through before they decided to make all the changes and turn everyones life upside down!
What a complete B***** mess.
:mad:

[squeakyunclean]

Another BALPA cock-up no doubt

[kinsman]

Squeaky

You really can't blame BALPA for everything you know! Just the one mistake! Give them a brake!;)

[A4]

Squeaky

Get out of bed the wrong side? Why are you jumping down my throat? I was replying to Flex's post that "there'll be few if any redundancies".

The fleet is reducing and bases are closing there WILL be redundancies. The management mantra has ALWAYS been that the Airbus leases are too expensive to get out of - hence it has never been an option. The cost savings in engineering and crewing terms for a single fleet are, to use your own words, not rocket science.

Why has this (rumoured) scenario suddenly appeared two whole months into the consultation process? Presumably, now the options (HA!) have changed, the 90 period will have to start again.

Squeaky, I find your explosive repsonse to my last post bemusing - calm down. What do you suggest I "have a word with yourself" about?

To correct my last spelling, whelk STALL anyone? Mind you the whole thing stinks, so perhaps the original spelling was more apt.

Bye

A4 :hmm:

[squeakyunclean]

Okay,

Have a word about if 118 pilots find another job and resign, how many pilots will be made redundant then?

Have a word about the cost of the Airbus being X, the cost of the Boeings, including all the things you mention being Y. If you take X away from Y and the answer is a negative number you have a cost saving despite there still being more than one fleet.

Still bemused?

Explosive, calm down? I must be rubbish at conveying my state of mind. (That’s probably a good thing though ;-))

I’d better go and have a word with myself. (Anyway, I blame BALPA for that as well)

Definitely Bye, bye this time.

FLEX42, IT’S NOT A 1% PAY RISE YOU B***** NUMPTY!!! THE SUBS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE. Rant, rave, rant, shout, swear……

(Oh no, not again)

[kinsman]

Squeaky

Time for a CRM course me thinks. Don't forget when the dust settles we are all on the same side even the BALPA CC. Much better not to get personal on these subjects and just stick to the issues. Otherwise we will end up as bad as that lot in Parliment.

[FLEX42]

I think squeaky must have pms :p

I am aware of tax deductibles, ya double numpty with brass knobs on :8 but it's still alot of dosh to be treated in the way that "really not" described when they have got it so wrong on this occasion.

[A4]

Squeaky, glad you have a sense of humour - we all need it at the moment. ;)

Silly of me to think that the "da management" might have actually done your X-Y=Z maths before launching into this whole debacle. Did someone come up with an idea last week about taking a closer look at leasing costs?

You've got to admit it seems a bit bloody odd to start coming up with "Boeing retention" scenarios this far down the line. This should have been looked at in the finest detail prior to July 26th!

If it's true.....................

A4 ;)

Flex - "ya double numpty with brass knobs on" - like it! :) :) :) :) :)

[squeakyunclean]

You know when a mad dog barks furiously when looking through a window, and the glass gets splattered in dog spit?

That’s what my computer screen looks like!!!

GRRRR.

pms- pathetic management syndrome?
Who told you about my brass knob?:uhoh:

[kinsman]

From what I can make out some of the new Airbus will go back and some or all of the Boeings will stay. Should make the retraining interesting!

[kiltedrebel]

The main reason for the reduction in pilots for MYT is/was their elimination of the Boeing fleet. The 763s were going to be kept on for the Hajj and then dropped when the lease finished but the latest goss that should be confirmed tomorrow is that the 753s, at leats most of them anyway, will not be going. Apparently this is due to the original buyers, a cargo firm, not being able to convert the a/c for two years and re-leasing them back to MYT under a lower rate...so what happens now?

[30W]

Boeings not going??

Guys, not a MYT employee, but I'll tell you how this all looks from the 'outside'......

Personally I saw MYT's city announcement of fleet cutting to be the most positive thing the company has done since it's troubles started. It has troubles, still big ones financially!! This was the first large 'positive' step towards accepting things are not well that I have seen, and I believe gave 'light' for a future ahead.

Staffing wise a bloody disater I know, I've been there before, more than once and know of it's pressures and griefs. I feel for everyone who faces redundancy and wish them all well, they will all get jobs medium term but know of the troubles they'll face until that time.

In the corporate picture however, a decision to change plans now I think is a disaster!! What image of your senior managements business skill does this portray to the city, and it's bankers???? "We're chopping the boeing fleet". "err, well, err perhaps we're not going to cut it all, err, we think........"

MYT's future is still very much in the hands of city confidence, and that of it's bankers. If they see POOR and INCOMPETENT management of the group I fear for it's future. Backtracking on what has been the groups most significant city announcement in some time i really feel will NOT go down well where it matters - with your backers!!

Wish you all good luck.

30W

[Dengue_Dude]

Now comfortably OUT of MYT I can't help thinking that this whole thread reminds me of the typical senior management adage of :

'Do More with Less' until I can get out with my Separation Package (usually 5 or 6 figures).

I feel desperately sorry for those of my ex-peers who are in this situation.

That said the writing has been on the wall in bl**dy great big letters 6 feet high for the last couple of years minimum.

Sadly too, it brings out the one of the worst features of our own human natures which is if you think you're safe - pull up the rope ladder sharpish in case anyone manages to get past you. Mortgages to pay, kids to feed etc etc. . .

This sadly leads to the above slanging match where much hot air is re-distributed and little else is constructively achieved.

Clear, the decks, blow main ballast and dive, dive dive.

I only hope the company can smoothly achieve 'periscope depth' and doesn't continue to the ocean floor.

But it's not ALL bad news - Andrex have made a bid for my shares though, so all is not lost - yet.

[SandLat650]

Dengue_Dude

Atta Boy, can't keep a good man down. We've missed your posts on Arena these last 12 months! I haven't missed you taking sneaky pictures of me with the seat in the reclined position however, something that seems to happen a bit too frequently these days, especially on the night Kos.

All this is too depressing and it's time to move on for a bit of excitement. I see you're worried about the Hadj. Well, probably a bit safer than being firebombed on both sides in Manchester old boy. In Jeddah, you'll never know, but in Manchester you knew they were just adjusting their aim and yours was the next target!

Could be worse; you could be looking at hauling tractor parts down to Africa like the rest of us! Now there's some excitement. Wonder what the nightlife's like in Entebbe at this time of year......!

See you around - it's a small world.